Stan, Martin and friends:
>.....if we used L/km.....Just a thought. Using Litres per kilometre may lead
>to some confusion since this shall be a figure too little for parallel
>considerations beteen cars of different models and between country to country.
>Instead, my recommendation favours KILOMETRES of travel per Litre
(km/L). This may be some realistic figure to offer comparision and reach viable
conclusion.
>Therefore the cost per L determines > the best buy regardless of distance.
I think, distance travelled per Lire vs cost per Litre give the operative cost
of transportation irrespective of distance.
Regards, Brij Bhushan Vij (MJD 2454495)/995+D-030W04-02 (G. Tuesday, 2008
January 29 H 19:66(decimal) ISTAa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30 Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31;
Nov:30; Dec:30 (365th day of Year is World Day) HOME PAGE:
http://www.brijvij.com/******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****"Koi bhi
cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"Contact # 011-9818775933
(M)001(201)962-3708(when in US)> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:40292] Re: convenient numerical values>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:26:21 +0000> > Is it not valid to regard fuel as a
currency - if I am comparing my car with your car, I can use £/km, you would
use $/km, Han (in the Netherlands) would use €/km but if we used L/km (or L/100
km to generate numbers that are greater than 1), we could all compare the costs
of our respective cars. > > -----Original Message-----> From: STANLEY DOORE
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 January 2008 22:20> To: Martin Vlietstra;
'U.S. Metric Association'> Subject: Re: [USMA:40269] Re: convenient numerical
values> > The fuel efficiency (km/L) is the governing factor. Prices are given
in > cost/L or cost per gallon in the US. Therefore the cost per L determines >
the best buy regardless of distance. Also, L is in the denominator in both >
cases. The assumption that price is the same at different fuel stations is >
not valid.> Stan Doore> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin
Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'U.S. Metric
Association'" > <[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 4:49 PM>
Subject: RE: [USMA:40269] Re: convenient numerical values> > > > If one trader
sells apples at $1.00/kg and another at $1.20/kg, which is > > the> > more
expensive? The one with the larger number associated with it.> >> > Similarly,
if one car uses 5 L/100km and another uses 6 L/100km, which is> > the more
expensive? Again, the one with the larger number associated with> > it.> >> >
-----Original Message-----> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf> > Of STANLEY DOORE> > Sent: 28 January 2008 18:55> > To: U.S. Metric
Association> > Subject: [USMA:40269] Re: convenient numerical values> >> > The
use of km/L is similar to the mpg used in the US. It avoids the> > need for a
decimal point in L or the use of mL in the L/km expression..> > If one runs out
of gas and you know the distance you need to travel to> > the next fuel
station, it's very easy to know how many L are needed.> >> > Stan Doore> >> >>
>> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Pierre Abbat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>> > Sent: Monday, January
28, 2008 7:11 AM> > Subject: [USMA:40258] Re: convenient numerical values> >>
>> >> On Sunday 27 January 2008 20:37, Ziser, Jesse wrote:> >>> >>> I'd like to
offer another possible example of violation of the rule of> >>> thousands. I
keep seeing L/100 km in fuel efficiency contexts. I also> >>> occasionally see
km/L but it appears to be rarer. km/L is clearly more> >>> "thousandy", and
also has the debatable advantage of being "distance per> >>> volume" just like
MPG. Besides, "L/100 km" seems an awkward mouthful.> >>> Is> >>> this really
the preferred unit?> >>>> >>> I'm thinking about getting metric mileage bumper
stickers for my friends> >>> and family (most of whom I'm sure would
enthusiastically accept and> >>> display> >>> them) and I was wondering if
anyone had any other opinions on the km/L> >>> versus L/100 km issue. I've been
unable to find much about it online.> >>> >> At least two of us agreed, the
last time this came up, that the unit of> >> fuel> >> consumption should be the
liter per megameter, or microliter per meter > >> (or> >> cubic millimeter per
meter if you wish to avoid "liter").> >>> >> As to methods of averaging, the
harmonic mean is a bit more abstruse than> >> the> >> arithmetic mean, but it
comes up all the time in electric circuits. Every> >> little kid should know
some reciprocals and be able to estimate a > >> harmonic> >> mean.> >>> >>
Pierre> >>> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
http://biggestloser.msn.com/
